Closer or no closer, that is the question!

[wsnydes]

As the game has evolved, so has bullpen usage.  Some would argue that the closer role is antiquated, while others still feel that there is a place for them in the game.  Personally, I'm of the ilk that feels that it depends on the makeup of the bullpen.  Some teams will have a guy suited for a designated closer role, others will not.  I believe the Twins are the latter, considering only the current makeup of the roster.  Where do you sit?  Do you think Rogers is capable closer material, or perhaps someone else?  Do you think game situation should dictate when to use your best arms? 

I think we'd all agree that reinforcements could be brought in, but would you target a closer type or just solid relievers that can provide flexibility

[Brock Beauchamp]

I prefer the idea of dual closers or not using your best arm in the closer role most of the time.

The best possible situation is to have a dominant lefty and a dominant righty and alternate them based on need. That will often give you really solid coverage of both the eighth and ninth innings, which significantly improves chance of victory.

An acceptable alternative is to only use your best arms if the deficit is one run, relying more on your secondary bullpen pieces if the lead is two runs or greater.

I don't believe in dedicating one guy to all save situations. It's too big of a waste of your most talented reliever, sending him into games with a 2+ run lead just because it's the ninth inning.

Using this tool, it appears that if the road team is down two runs going into the ninth, they have a 12.5% chance of scoring 2+ runs and a 5.5% chance of scoring 3+ runs.

https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/stats.html#V.2.9.0.1.0.0

Maybe, depending on the team and the order of hitters coming to the plate, I'd consider using my best reliever with a two run lead. I'd almost never use that reliever with a three run lead. It's likely he'd be more valuable in the seventh inning tomorrow night than the ninth inning tonight.

[wsnydes]

22 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I prefer the idea of dual closers or not using your best arm in the closer role most of the time.

The best possible situation is to have a dominant lefty and a dominant righty and alternate them based on need. That will often give you really solid coverage of both the eighth and ninth innings, which significantly improves chance of victory.

An acceptable alternative is to only use your best arms if the deficit is one run, relying more on your secondary bullpen pieces if the lead is two runs or greater.

I don't believe in dedicating one guy to all save situations. It's too big of a waste of your most talented reliever, sending him into games with a 2+ run lead just because it's the ninth inning.

Using this tool, it appears that if the road team is down two runs going into the ninth, they have a 12.5% chance of scoring 2+ runs and a 5.5% chance of scoring 3+ runs.

https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/stats.html#V.2.9.0.1.0.0

Maybe, depending on the team and the order of hitters coming to the plate, I'd consider using my best reliever with a two run lead. I'd almost never use that reliever with a three run lead. It's likely he'd be more valuable in the seventh inning tomorrow night than the ninth inning tonight.

That's an interesting tool.  What I found very interesting is that those percentages don't change substantially when changing the date range.  Those percentages have been remarkably consistent despite how the game has evolved.

[USAFChief]

Wait for it...

 

"Yes."

[wsnydes]

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

Wait for it...

 

"Yes."

Insightful as always, Chief!?

[cHawk]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Wait for it...

 

"Yes."

If one closer is good, why not two?

[Old fox]

It depends on the type of team, type of rotation whether short outing 5 & less innings. Or 6 or 7 innings or longer.  A general rule if a  weak  rotation then requires a strong bullpen and strong rotation may get by with weaker bullpen.  Bullpen’s gained popularity in the last 20 years because of cheaper costs but in the last 3 years prices have increased greatly. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

13 hours ago, Old fox said:

It depends on the type of team, type of rotation whether short outing 5 & less innings. Or 6 or 7 innings or longer.  A general rule if a  weak  rotation then requires a strong bullpen and strong rotation may get by with weaker bullpen.  Bullpen’s gained popularity in the last 20 years because of cheaper costs but in the last 3 years prices have increased greatly. 

Predicting 3 inning saves?

[Brandon]

I don't think we need a traditional closer per se.  Someone who can get outs and not consistently self implode at the end of the game is important.  There is an added stress at the end of the game and we want a pitcher who can handle that.  What we do need is elite run prevention from a pitcher in the pen that can be deployed at critical points in the game.  Sometimes at the end of the game and sometimes in the 7th or 8th innings when the middle of the order comes to bat in a close game.

And if we can get it, we could use multiple elite run prevention pitchers out of the pen.  Also a deep pen of pitchers who have better than average but less than elite run prevention is also important for the team.  It is even more important then having just a good closer.  8 of these types of pitchers is preferable to an elite closer.

[Brandon]

19 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I prefer the idea of dual closers or not using your best arm in the closer role most of the time.

The best possible situation is to have a dominant lefty and a dominant righty and alternate them based on need. That will often give you really solid coverage of both the eighth and ninth innings, which significantly improves chance of victory.

An acceptable alternative is to only use your best arms if the deficit is one run, relying more on your secondary bullpen pieces if the lead is two runs or greater.

I don't believe in dedicating one guy to all save situations. It's too big of a waste of your most talented reliever, sending him into games with a 2+ run lead just because it's the ninth inning.

Using this tool, it appears that if the road team is down two runs going into the ninth, they have a 12.5% chance of scoring 2+ runs and a 5.5% chance of scoring 3+ runs.

https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/stats.html#V.2.9.0.1.0.0

Maybe, depending on the team and the order of hitters coming to the plate, I'd consider using my best reliever with a two run lead. I'd almost never use that reliever with a three run lead. It's likely he'd be more valuable in the seventh inning tomorrow night than the ninth inning tonight.

I think the idea of having your elite closer get a save in those 2+ run situations is to give them a mental break in a game once in a while.  It is probably nice to get into a game where everything is not on the line for a change. 

[wsnydes]

13 hours ago, Old fox said:

It depends on the type of team, type of rotation whether short outing 5 & less innings. Or 6 or 7 innings or longer.  A general rule if a  weak  rotation then requires a strong bullpen and strong rotation may get by with weaker bullpen.  Bullpen’s gained popularity in the last 20 years because of cheaper costs but in the last 3 years prices have increased greatly. 

Starters aren't going deep into games anymore, so a strong bullpen is a must for any team to be truly competitive.  How it's constructed does differ from the to team though.

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I think the idea of having your elite closer get a save in those 2+ run situations is to give them a mental break in a game once in a while.  It is probably nice to get into a game where everything is not on the line for a change. 

Possibly, but I think traditionally it has been more out of habit than actual game strategy. After LaRussa revamped bullpen usage in the 80s, managers "strategized" around the save stat. If it was a save opportunity, the dedicated closer went into the game. Look at Gardy's years with the Twins, particularly with Joe Nathan. If Nathan was rested and a save would be awarded for the game, Joe took the mound basically 100% of the time.

And while I actually think Gardy was a good bullpen manager, managing around a stat is always wrong.

[Brandon]

Just now, Brock Beauchamp said:

Possibly, but I think traditionally it has been more out of habit than actual game strategy. After LaRussa revamped bullpen usage in the 80s, managers "strategized" around the save stat. If it was a save opportunity, the "closer" went into the game. Look at Gardy's years with the Twins, particularly with Joe Nathan. If Nathan was rested and a save would be awarded for the game, Joe entered the game basically 100% of the time.

And while I actually think Gardy was a good bullpen manager, managing around a stat is always wrong.

I agree.  but why did LaRussa always have the pitcher come in for the save?  That pitcher was a known to handle the end of the game stress and having the extra cushion was a mental break, even if the media never talked about it this way, I am sure that played a part in LaRussa's decision making.  now when others hopped on the band wagon they may not used as much thought.  I mean there are probably times where a top reliever could get deployed earlier in some games and in others they could be brought in for the cush save.  I mean against a top team a reliever could get brought in earlier to get the critical outs and against the bottom dwellers of the time the closer could get brought in for the cush save.  Not having that creativity from the manager is inexcusable.   

[Richie the Rally Goat]

9 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Possibly, but I think traditionally it has been more out of habit than actual game strategy. After LaRussa revamped bullpen usage in the 80s, managers "strategized" around the save stat. If it was a save opportunity, the dedicated closer went into the game. Look at Gardy's years with the Twins, particularly with Joe Nathan. If Nathan was rested and a save would be awarded for the game, Joe took the mound basically 100% of the time.

And while I actually think Gardy was a good bullpen manager, managing around a stat is always wrong.

managing around a stat is always wrong? really? throw all the data out and use your gut instinct then?

I disagree with this, and I think you do too, just poorly worded

Managing around the SAVE stat as one that doesn't actually improve outcomes for winning the most games is wrong, just like Pitcher WINS or quality starts. WPA or another stat that does actually correlate strongly with winning the most games should be the practice along with bringing in qualitative information that you don't yet have a metric for.

Absolutes are "always" tricky

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

managing around a stat is always wrong? really? throw all the data out and use your gut instinct then?

I disagree with this, and I think you do too, just poorly worded

Managing around the SAVE stat as one that doesn't actually improve outcomes for winning the most games is wrong, just like Pitcher WINS or quality starts. WPA or another stat that does actually correlate strongly with winning the most games should be the practice along with bringing in qualitative information that you don't yet have a metric for.

Absolutes are "always" tricky

Shaddup, sconnie.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

43 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Shaddup, sconnie.

And Scene....

 

Thank you everyone for viewing our text reenactment of the touch 'em all pub crawls, the winter melt downs, and all of the other times actually met in person prior to Covid

 

Ah.. the good old days when we met in person

[Rosterman]

The ultimate is to have a long relief guy, a lefty that can pitch to more than three guys, someone who more than likely will generate a ground ball, a fly ball pitcher, and a strikeout king. The pain today is that because you don't carry multiple long-relief guys, you are using 2-3-4 pitchers in a game. That should be totally unnecessary.

 

Quote

 

I feel Rogers is best suited as a setup guy.

 

I always felt the Twins lost it when they allowed Crain to go, Pressly to be traded, and May to walk. All had closer possibilities for the organization.

 

The worth of a closer? Beginning the 2021 season with Colome and losing essentially 8 games that should've been closed out in style. Add seven wins and take away seven losses and where would the Twins have finished.

 

The thing is, there are very few career closers. You get a guy for maybe five seasons at best. How he gets there needs to be determined. Look at Liam Hendriks, who falls into the category of so many like Hawkins, Guardado, Nathan and Perkins. A failed rotation arm who struggled in relief and then shines for a span as a closer.

 

I want to see Joe Ryan pitch and succeed as a rotation arm, but if he does faulter, he has "closer" written all over him, and he could be a superstar in that position.

 

A closer has to have attitude. They, more often than not, have to successfully challemnge a hitter, being sneaky only for a moment in a game. They need to pitch back-to-back. They also need to adjust to failure. But they need utter confidence in their pitching. 

 

The next in line...the Rogers and Duffeys...can do it as needed and give your buillpen strength to win close series.

 

If your team is not competitivem you don't need a closer. You can try a guy out in the few situations needed, or do a reclamation project that you may be able to continue signing for the team.

 

[Platoon]

21 minutes ago, Rosterman said:

A closer has to have attitude. They, more often than not, have to successfully challemnge a hitter, being sneaky only for a moment in a game. They need to pitch back-to-back. They also need to adjust to failure. But they need utter confidence in their pitching. 

My "baseball" son and I just discussed this just yesterday. It’s one thing to come in in the 7th or 8th in a 1-2 run game and give up the lead. Your team gets at least a couple more at bats. Now, come in in the 9th and give up those runs and you may get an at bat, or you may have to walk directly to the dugout with your glove covering your mouth, watching a bunch of opponents pouring Gatorade on one of their teammates. 
 

Being a closer takes a different mentality. Lots of confidence that you are unbeatable, and an extremely short memory if you aren’t that particular day. Not everyone has it. We discussed LaTroy Hawkins as an example. I am sure the game is filled with reliable middle inning relievers who couldn’t bring that to the 9th inning?

[chpettit19]

I don't think you need a classic closer type, but it doesn't hurt to have either. I think bullpens are all about having a plan and being good at filling the roles you've designed. A closer wouldn't be my top priority these days, but a "fireman" would be. Someone you can bring in anytime of a game and know you have a really good chance of getting a K or two as needed and getting out of a tough spot. A Hader type. 

My ideal bullpen would be 2 lefties I trust to get outs late in games. 2 righties I trust to get outs late in games. 1 fireman I trust to K people at high rates to get out of jams or lock down the end of the game, and 2 long relievers. The challenge is filling those roles consistently. Relievers tend to be fickle beings and hard to predict. So you need a steady line of relievers to succeed. But I'm also someone who would be less strict about "twice through the order is all you get" with his starters. So that determines what I want for my pen.

With the ever changing usage of pitchers these days you can go so many ways with things. And, arguably, you can't really talk about your starters and relievers separately. It's about the pitching staff as a whole. If you're going to be a "twice through the lineup" team with your starters that changes what you need out of your pen. If you're a team running deGrom and Scherzer out there as part of your rotation you can build a different style of pen. The game is getting more and more to just counting outs and being able to ensure you have enough arms to get a certain number of outs in a series or on a road trip or whatever. Staffs run 20+ deep now. Not because of injuries, but as a plan. I don't like it, but it's how teams are doing things. In that case it may be an advantage to have a closer locked in so you know you can mix and match a ton of relievers while knowing you don't have to worry about the 9th. Pitching, and staff makeups, moving forward will be interesting to follow.

[farmerguychris]

Does it really have to be this hard?  Have both a righty and a lefty late innings/high leverage guy you can trust available to use in the 9th and send out the one with the better matchups.  Don't overthink it.

[Platoon]

11 minutes ago, farmerguychris said:

Does it really have to be this hard?  Have both a righty and a lefty late innings/high leverage guy you can trust available to use in the 9th and send out the one with the better matchups.  Don't overthink it.

Actually a wonderful idea. Now all we would need is to identify one of each and then shell out the cash and sign them. And therein lies the problem…… 

[cmoss84]

Have had this conversation with some of you before...but I believe the entire pitching staff should be made up of relief specialists. Have 12 or 13...about $50-$60 million of the cap and spend the rest on position players. Takes away any risk of signing a SP to big money and having them get injured. Just where the game seems to be going. Everyone pitches 2-3 times a week.  

Closer 1A: RHP $10 mil

Closer 1B: LHP $10 mil

Setup man 1A: RHP $5

Setup man 1B: LHP $5

Long man (3-4 inn) 1A: RHP $5

Long man 1B: LHP $5

6 or 7 others...mixture of veterans and young arms: $10-$20

[nicksaviking]

5 hours ago, Sconnie said:

managing around a stat is always wrong? really? throw all the data out and use your gut instinct then?

I disagree with this, and I think you do too, just poorly worded

Managing around the SAVE stat as one that doesn't actually improve outcomes for winning the most games is wrong, just like Pitcher WINS or quality starts. WPA or another stat that does actually correlate strongly with winning the most games should be the practice along with bringing in qualitative information that you don't yet have a metric for.

Absolutes are "always" tricky

I think managing to get the pitcher a Win is still a good idea.

I just couldn't care less which pitcher actually gets credit for the stupid Win.

Heck, let's start giving the Wins to the rightfielder just to switch it up. 

[wsnydes]

1 hour ago, cmoss84 said:

Have had this conversation with some of you before...but I believe the entire pitching staff should be made up of relief specialists. Have 12 or 13...about $50-$60 million of the cap and spend the rest on position players. Takes away any risk of signing a SP to big money and having them get injured. Just where the game seems to be going. Everyone pitches 2-3 times a week.  

Closer 1A: RHP $10 mil

Closer 1B: LHP $10 mil

Setup man 1A: RHP $5

Setup man 1B: LHP $5

Long man (3-4 inn) 1A: RHP $5

Long man 1B: LHP $5

6 or 7 others...mixture of veterans and young arms: $10-$20

While I think this would be a very effective way to go about things, it also sounds like it would make for an incredibly boring product.  Shutting down the offense even more doesn't seem like a means to success for a dying sport.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

I think managing to get the pitcher a Win is still a good idea.

I just couldn't care less which pitcher actually gets credit for the stupid Win.

Heck, let's start giving the Wins to the rightfielder just to switch it up. 

Managing to get a pitcher a Win, starts with the Starter, therefore 5+ innings, get the lead, turn it over to the setup man and closer, which is great and has a high correlation to team wins but only 34% Win, 35% loss and 31% no decision. Statistically what does that tell you? Not much
 

how does Baldelli manage to that stat with his current rotation? Does holding to that stat box Baldelli into a corner?

[TopGunn#22]

I think Rosterman hit the nail on the head:  Last year, coming off being the two time Division Champs, we stumbled out of the gate when Colome and Rogers (primarily Colome) couldn't hold a lead and we blew save after save after save.  It wrecked the entire season and put us in a hole we couldn't claw out of.  Now, as we look at 2022 "expectations" are entirely different.  Want a closer ?  Sign one of the best ever in Kenley Jansen.  The problem with that is he will most probably resign with the Dodgers (just like Chris Taylor).  But I think Rogers is best suited to an occasional closer and more of a high leverage guy.  I wanted us to take a run at Graveman or Knebel.  But both are gone now.  We could use ONE more arm and I'd like it to be a guy who could close.  But the guy who COULD be "That Guy" could already be on the roster.  Alcala intrigues me.  I'd just like one more guy to give Alcala one more season to "decant."  

[nicksaviking]

21 hours ago, Sconnie said:

Managing to get a pitcher a Win, starts with the Starter, therefore 5+ innings, get the lead, turn it over to the setup man and closer, which is great and has a high correlation to team wins but only 34% Win, 35% loss and 31% no decision. Statistically what does that tell you? Not much
 

how does Baldelli manage to that stat with his current rotation? Does holding to that stat box Baldelli into a corner?

Well like I said, I couldn't care less which pitcher gets the Win. I mean I couldn't care less which Twins pitcher gets the Win.

It was a joke, since if the Twins win, some pitcher will be awarded the dumb stat whether they deserved it or not. So, yeah, I hope Baldelli is managing with the intent to win the game.

[wsnydes]

21 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Well like I said, I could care less which pitcher gets the Win. I mean I could care less which Twins pitcher gets the Win.

It was a joke, since if the Twins win, some pitcher will be awarded the dumb stat whether they deserved it or not. So, yeah, I hope Baldelli is managing with the intent to win the game.

Herm Edwards approves of this post.